Just call our vasectomy reversal coordinator and mention this post. She will schedule your reversal as soon as possible! 770-535-0001 ext 113 or kathy.burton@ngurology.com.

Because a vasectomy reversal is usually not covered by insurance, the patient usually pays an all inclusive fee to the surgeon. This fee covers all of the components of having a surgical procedure such as:

The fee of the surgeon to perform the reversal.

The facility fee which includes the cost of the nurses and staffing, the facility (operating room), suture materials and the operating microscope, the anesthesiologist and the anesthesia supplies necessary to put a patient to sleep.

The cost of overnight accommodations (if necessary).

At Northeast Georgia Urological Associates our facility is accredited and owned by our practice which in turn allows our all inclusive fee to be much less than if a hospital were used. Our anesthesiologists are board certified as well as Dr. McHugh.

The all inclusive cost for a microscopic vasectomy reversal at the Northeast Georgia Ambulatory Surgery Center is $6,500.00. After promotion- $6,000.00.

Kathy Burton 770.535.0001 ext 113 or kathy.burton@ngurology.com is available to help with all things vasectomy reversal. CareCredit is an option for couples preferring to pay over time.

If you look at the top right picture you’ll notice that the method used for this vasectomy was a clip. You’ll also notice that the vas to the left of the clip is larger in diameter than the vas extending below the clip. This is because the larger diameter vas is coming from the testicle and is always larger to the pressure of the sperm produced. This is the area of the vas at the time of the reversal where fluid is checked for its character and the presence or absence of sperm or sperm parts. When the testicular end is cut you almost always see fluid emanate promptly.

This back pressure is what is felt to be responsible for post vasectomy pain syndrome. I have postulated in a previous post that the inflammatory changes around the spot of the vasectomy could also contribute to this syndrome and the pain.

Although not all urological microscopic surgeon remove the entire vasectomy site, I always do. I feel it is cleaner and may help with any pre-reversal symptom issues related to this area of healing/inflammation associated with the vasectomy.

Can There Be Complete Resolution of Pain for Men With PVPS?

One of the most complimentary letters I have ever received was from a patient on whom I performed a vasectomy reversal for relief of chronic testicular pain which started after his vasectomy years previously. Go figure!

Urology – June 15, 2016 – Vol. 34 – No. 3

A subset of men have complete resolution of postvasectomy pain with vasectomy reversal. Most men have some improvement in pain scores with vasectomy reversal.

Background: Vasectomy is a common and effective procedure for sterility. Although complications are infrequent, postvasectomy pain syndrome (PVPS) does occur in some subset of patients. Most previous studies report that men who have PVPS do not generally seek additional medical treatment and have minimal affect on quality of life. However, a small subset has pain significant enough to require additional care and procedures.

Objective: To determine outcomes of vasectomy reversal (VR) for PVPS.

Design: Retrospective chart review.

Methods: A single surgeon series was reviewed for men who underwent VR for PVPS. Although there was not an algorithmic approach to preoperative pain management, patients were only considered for VR if they had worsening of pain with ejaculation or arousal. The location of vasectomy site along the vas deferens was recorded at time of the procedure in the operative note. Pain scores were evaluated with a non-validated questionnaire by recall.

Results: 31 patients from a pool of 123 potential patients were included. There was a 59% improvement in pain scores, with 34% of patients reporting a complete resolution of pain. Two patients required additional procedures for pain (epididymectomy and orchiectomy), and 84% of patients would recommend VR to a man with PVPS. There was no relationship between location of vasectomy and possibility of PVPS.

Conclusions: VR for PVPS demonstrated significant improvements in pain scores in this study.

Reviewer’s Comments: Although the questionnaire is non-validated and the pain scores are by recall, the fact that men generally reported an improvement in pain scores with VR is reassuring. As roughly one-third of men had total resolution of pain, there is likely an etiology of vasal obstruction leading to pain among these men. I have always wondered if some of the cases captured in studies looking at PVPS are really just the background of orchalgia in the population that we now attribute to the previous vasectomy. Considering how few men seek medical attention and undergo procedures for PVPS, I have always believed there is likely a group of men who have intermittent scrotal pain and a group who clearly have pain from vasectomy-induced obstruction. In their comments, the authors observe how patients seemed to group into complete (or almost complete) resolution of pain or minimal change in pain. As the authors were thoughtful by only considering men for reversal if they had pain with ejaculation or sexual stimulation, one would hope that this would only select men who truly have an obstruction-induced pain syndrome. This is a nice addition to the literature and does point out that there are some men who fully respond to reversal for PVPS. These men, however, may be difficult to identify preoperatively.(Reviewer–Charles Welliver, MD).

The more invasive tubal ligation still outnumbers vasectomy among the options for permanent sterilization for couples. The rationale for this involves speculation, but male partner anxiety surrounding issues of sexual function have been proposed and are certainly evident when counseling males before vasectomy.

If nothing else…this article is interesting. Although the most common cause of desiring a vasectomy reversal is a male who has had children and a vasectomy has remarried someone with no children. This study showed that %17 of the time a reversal is desired by a couple who have had a vasectomy and now desire more children. Their success rate is higher than if the male remarries and has a reversal.

Vasectomy Reversal Better With Same Partner as Prior to Vasectomy

Urology – July 30, 2015 – Vol. 32 – No. 12

Vasectomy reversal success in regard to clinical pregnancy is improved if the patient has the same partner before and after vasectomy.

Background: Vasectomy reversal is requested by around 6% of men who previously had undergone a vasectomy and desire subsequent fertility. Frequently, this is due to a new relationship; however, some couples desire another child or may have lost a child. Two small prior studies have suggested improved pregnancy rates following vasectomy reversal with the same partner as before vasectomy.

Objective: To determine if clinical pregnancy and birth rates are higher for men undergoing vasectomy reversal with the same female partner.

Design: Retrospective review of a prospectively collected database.

Methods: All patients from a single surgeon were reviewed from 1978 to 2011. Obstructive interval, surgery type, vasal fluid character, and sperm character were recorded. Men either self-reported pregnancy and birth rates or completed a survey response. All patients had at least 12 months of follow-up data.

Results: Over the time frame, 3135 men underwent vasectomy reversal; 17% (524 men) undergoing vasectomy reversal had the same female partner. A total of 258 (49%) responded to the survey, and 89% (229) underwent bilateral vasectomy reversal. The average patient and partner age was significantly higher in the same partner group compared to the new partner group, although the same partner group had a significantly shorter obstructive interval at 5.65 years versus 9.23 years. Overall, the clinical pregnancy rate for men with the same partner was 83% compared with 60% in men with a new partner. After regression, this maintained an odds ratio of 2 and was significant.

Conclusions: Men undergoing vasectomy reversal with the same partner experience a higher pregnancy rate compared men with a new partner.

Reviewer’s Comments: This article supports prior articles by Kolettis et al and Goldstein et al. The larger number of patients provides an excellent dataset even though it is a single surgeon. The success rates are substantially higher and maintain significance, even after controlling for ages and obstructive interval. It is also useful to have typical data of a 60% pregnancy rate for those with a new partner. Many patients are interested in “success” following surgery, and this is not solely a desire to have sperm return to the ejaculate. There are limitations, however, because the survey results were returned by only 49% of patients, leaving the potential for reporting bias. Overall, this information is useful when counseling patients with the same partner as prior to vasectomy.(Reviewer–Gregory Lowe, MD).

By Rebecca L Anderson, Eric J Jacobs, Christina C Newton, Victoria L Stevens
Purpose In a recent large prospective study, vasectomy was associated with modestly higher risk of prostate cancer, especially high-grade and lethal prostate cancer. However, evidence from prospective studies remains limited. Therefore, we assessed the associations of vasectomy with prostate cancer incidence and mortality in a large cohort in the United States.
Patients and Methods We examined the association between vasectomy and prostate cancer mortality among 363,726 men in the Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS-II) cohort, of whom 7,451 died as a result of prostate cancer during follow-up from 1982 to 2012. We also examined the association between vasectomy and prostate cancer incidence among 66,542 men in the CPS-II Nutrition Cohort, a subgroup of the CPS-II cohort, of whom 9,133 were diagnosed with prostate cancer during follow-up from 1992 to 2011. Cox proportional hazards regression modeling was used to estimate multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs.
Results In the CPS-II cohort, vasectomy was not associated with prostate cancer mortality (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.10). In the CPS-II Nutrition Cohort, vasectomy was not associated with either overall prostate cancer incidence (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.08) or high-grade prostate cancer incidence (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.07 for cancers with Gleason score ≥ 8).

Conclusion Results from these large prospective cohorts do not support associations of vasectomy with either prostate cancer incidence or prostate cancer mortality.